Davis v. USA
Petitioner: Adrian Marcell Davis
Respondent: USA
Case Number: 6:2016cv01267
Filed: November 4, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Office: Tyler Office
County: Gregg
Presiding Judge: Ron Clark
Presiding Judge: K. Nicole Mitchell
Nature of Suit: Motions to Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 17, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDERED that Mr Davis' motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 USC 2255 is denied and the case is dismissed with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied. All motions not previously ruled on are denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 8/17/2017. (bjc, )
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Texas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Davis v. USA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: USA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Adrian Marcell Davis
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?